[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Multi-objective Stochastic Paint Optimizer (MOSPO)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The single-objective version of stochastic paint optimizer (SPO) is appropriately changed to solve multi-objective optimization problems described as MOSPO. Color theory, the color wheel, and color combination methods are the main concepts of SPO. The SPO will be able to do excellent exploration and exploitation thanks to four simple color combination rules that do not have any internal parameters. Principles like using of fixed-sized external archive make the recommended technique various from the initial single-objective SPO. In addition, to perform multi-objective optimization, the leader selection feature has been added to SPO. The efficiency of recommended multi-objective stochastic paint optimizer (MOSPO) is tested on ten mathematical (CEC-09) and eight multi-objective engineering design problems concerning remarkable precision and uniformity compared to multi-objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO), multi-objective slap swarm algorithm (MSSA), and multi-objective ant lion optimizer. According to the results of different performance metrics, such as generational distance (GD), inverted generational distance (IGD), maximum spread, and spacing, the proposed algorithm can provide quality Pareto fronts with very competitive results with high convergence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Schaffer JD, Grefenstette JJ (1985) Multi-objective learning via genetic algorithms. Ijcai 85:593–595

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of ICNN'95-international conference on neural networks, vol 4, IEEE, pp 1942–1948

  3. Kaveh A, Khodadadi N, Azar BF, Talatahari S (2020) Optimal design of large-scale frames with an advanced charged system search algorithm using box-shaped sections. Eng Comput 37:2521–2541

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cheng M-Y, Prayogo D (2014) Symbiotic organisms search: a new metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Comput Struct 139:98–112

    Google Scholar 

  5. Erol OK, Eksin I (2006) A new optimization method: big bang–big crunch. Adv Eng Softw 37(2):106–111

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kaveh A, Eslamlou AD, Khodadadi N (2020) Dynamic water strider algorithm for optimal design of skeletal structures. Period Polytech Civ Eng 64(3):904–916

    Google Scholar 

  7. Askari Q, Younas I, Saeed M (2020) Political optimizer: a novel socio-inspired meta-heuristic for global optimization. Knowl-Based Syst 195:105709

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kaveh A, Talatahari S, Khodadadi N (2019) Hybrid invasive weed optimization-shuffled frog-leaping algorithm for optimal design of truss structures. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 44(2):405–420

    Google Scholar 

  9. Yang X, Gandomi AH (2012) Bat algorithm: a novel approach for global engineering optimization. Eng Comput 29(5):464–483

    Google Scholar 

  10. Abualigah L, Abd Elaziz M, Sumari P, Geem ZW, Gandomi AH (2022) Reptile search algorithm (RSA): a nature-inspired meta-heuristic optimizer. Expert Syst. Appl. 191:116158

    Google Scholar 

  11. Agushaka JO, Ezugwu AE, Abualigah L (2022) Dwarf mongoose optimization algorithm. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 391:114570

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Khodadadi N, Vaclav S, Mirjalili S (2022) Dynamic arithmetic optimization algorithm for truss optimization under natural frequency constraints. IEEE Access 10:16188–16208

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ewees AA, Abd El Aziz M, Hassanien AE (2019) Chaotic multi-verse optimizer-based feature selection. Neural Comput Appl 31(4):991–1006

    Google Scholar 

  14. Neggaz N, Houssein EH, Hussain K (2020) An efficient henry gas solubility optimization for feature selection. Expert Syst Appl 152:113364

    Google Scholar 

  15. Khodadadi N, Mirjalili S (2022) Truss optimization with natural frequency constraints using generalized normal distribution optimization. Appl Intell. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-03051-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Khodadadi N, Talatahari S, Dadras Eslamlou A (2022) MOTEO: a novel multi-objective thermal exchange optimization algorithm for engineering problems. Soft Comput. 1–26

  17. Abualigah L, Diabat A, Mirjalili S, Abd Elaziz M, Gandomi AH (2021) The arithmetic optimization algorithm. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 376:113609

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Abdel-Basset M, Mohamed R, Mirjalili S, Chakrabortty RK, Ryan M (2021) An efficient marine predators algorithm for solving multi-objective optimization problems: analysis and validations. IEEE Access 9:42817–42844

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kaveh A, Talatahari S, Khodadadi N (2019) The hybrid invasive weed optimization-shuffled frog-leaping algorithm applied to optimal design of frame structures. Period Polytech Civ Eng 63(3):882–897

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kaveh A, Khodadadi N, Talatahari S (2021) A comparative study for the optimal design of steel structures using css and acss algorithms. Iran Univ Sci Technol 11(1):31–54

    Google Scholar 

  21. Talbi E-G (2009) Metaheuristics: from design to implementation, vol 74. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Jangir P (2020) MONSDA:-a novel multi-objective non-dominated sorting dragonfly algorithm. Glob J Res Eng. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/MONSDA%3A-A-Novel-Multi-Objective-Non-Dominated-Jangir/ff9a4eb307836819587dc38822797e1702ea1e52

  23. Coello CAC, Lamont GB, Van Veldhuizen DA (2007) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems, vol 5. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Sarkar D, Modak JM (2005) Pareto-optimal solutions for multi-objective optimization of fed-batch bioreactors using nondominated sorting genetic algorithm. Chem Eng Sci 60(2):481–492

    Google Scholar 

  25. Abdel-Basset M, Mohamed R, Mirjalili S (2021) A novel Whale optimization algorithm integrated with nelder-mead simplex for multi-objective optimization problems. Knowl-Based Syst 212:106619

    Google Scholar 

  26. Yang X-S, Karamanoglu M, He X (2014) Flower pollination algorithm: a novel approach for multiobjective optimization. Eng Optim 46(9):1222–1237

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Mirjalili S, Dong JS (2020) Multi-objective optimization using artificial intelligence techniques. Studies in Computaional Intelligence, Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  28. Andersson J (2000) A survey of multiobjective optimization in engineering design. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linktjping University, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  29. Du KL, Swamy MNS (2016) Particle swarm optimization. In: Search and optimization by metaheuristics, Springer, pp. 153–173.

  30. Mirjalili S, Jangir P, Mirjalili SZ, Saremi S, Trivedi IN (2017) Optimization of problems with multiple objectives using the multi-verse optimization algorithm. Knowl-Based Syst 134:50–71

    Google Scholar 

  31. Abualigah L, Diabat A (2021) Advances in Sine Cosine Algorithm: A comprehensive survey. Artif. Intell. Rev. 54(4):2567–2608

    Google Scholar 

  32. Khodadadi N, Azizi M, Talatahari S, Sareh P (2021) Multi-objective crystal structure algorithm (MOCryStAl): introduction and performance evaluation. IEEE Access 9:117795–117812

    Google Scholar 

  33. Abdel-Basset M, Mohamed R, Mirjalili S, Chakrabortty RK, Ryan MJ (2021) MOEO-EED: a multi-objective equilibrium optimizer with exploration–exploitation dominance strategy. Knowl-Based Syst 214:106717

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lai L, Fiaschi L, Cococcioni M (2020) Solving mixed Pareto-Lexicographic multi-objective optimization problems: the case of priority chains. Swarm Evol Comput 55:100687

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kaveh A, Talatahari S, Khodadadi N (2020) Stochastic paint optimizer: theory and application in civil engineering. Eng Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-020-01179-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wolpert DH, Macready WG (1997) No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 1(1):67–82

    Google Scholar 

  37. Edgeworth F (2003) Mathemtical psychics. In: Paul K and Co. (ed.) FY Edgeworth: mathematical psychics and further papers on political economy. Oxford University Press, 1881

  38. Coello CAC (2009) Evolutionary multi-objective optimization: some current research trends and topics that remain to be explored. Front Comput Sci China 3(1):18–30

    Google Scholar 

  39. Pareto V (1964) Cours d’économie politique, vol 1. Librairie Droz, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ngatchou P, Zarei A, El-Sharkawi (2005) Pareto multi objective optimization. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on, intelligent systems application to power systems, pp. 84–91

  41. Coello CC, Lechuga MS (2002) MOPSO: A proposal for multiple objective particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the 2002 congress on evolutionary computation. CEC'02 (Cat. No. 02TH8600), vol 2. IEEE, pp. 1051–1056

  42. Nebro AJ, Durillo JJ, Coello CAC (2013) Analysis of leader selection strategies in a multi-objective particle swarm optimizer. IEEE Congr Evolut Comput 2013:3153–3160

    Google Scholar 

  43. Knowles JD, Corne DW (2000) Approximating the nondominated front using the Pareto archived evolution strategy. Evol Comput 8(2):149–172

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sierra MR, Coello CAC (2005) Improving PSO-based multi-objective optimization using crowding, mutation and∈-dominance. In: International conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization, pp. 505–519

  45. Mirjalili S, Gandomi AH, Mirjalili SZ, Saremi S, Faris H, Mirjalili SM (2017) Salp Swarm Algorithm: A bio-inspired optimizer for engineering design problems. Adv Eng Softw 114:163–191

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mirjalili S, Jangir P, Saremi S (2017) Multi-objective ant lion optimizer: a multi-objective optimization algorithm for solving engineering problems. Appl Intell 46(1):79–95

    Google Scholar 

  47. Eskandar H, Sadollah A, Bahreininejad A, Hamdi M (2012) Water cycle algorithm–a novel metaheuristic optimization method for solving constrained engineering optimization problems. Comput Struct 110:151–166

    Google Scholar 

  48. Srinivasan N, Deb K (1994) Multi-objective function optimisation using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm. Evol Comput 2(3):221–248

    Google Scholar 

  49. Binh TT, Korn U (1997) MOBES: a multiobjective evolution strategy for constrained optimization problems. In: The third international conference on genetic algorithms (Mendel 97), vol. 25, pp. 27.

  50. Osyczka A, Kundu S (1995) A new method to solve generalized multicriteria optimization problems using the simple genetic algorithm. Struct Optim 10(2):94–99

    Google Scholar 

  51. Coello CAC, Pulido GT (2005) Multiobjective structural optimization using a microgenetic algorithm. Struct Multidiscip Optim 30(5):388–403

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ray T, Liew KM (2002) A swarm metaphor for multiobjective design optimization. Eng Optim 34(2):141–153

    Google Scholar 

  53. Kurpati A, Azarm S, Wu J (2002) Constraint handling improvements for multiobjective genetic algorithms. Struct Multidiscip Optim 23(3):204–213

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

    Nima Khodadadi

  2. Faculty of Computer Sciences and Informatics, Amman Arab University, Amman, Jordan

    Laith Abualigah

  3. School of Computer Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, George Town, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

    Laith Abualigah

  4. King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

    Seyedali Mirjalili

  5. Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research and Optimisation, Torrens University Australia, Brisbane, Australia

    Seyedali Mirjalili

  6. Yonsei Frontier Lab, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea

    Seyedali Mirjalili

Authors
  1. Nima Khodadadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laith Abualigah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Seyedali Mirjalili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seyedali Mirjalili.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A: constrained multi-objective test problems used in this paper

1.1 CONSTR

This issue [47] contains two constraints and two design variables that have a convex Pareto front.

$${\text{Minimize: }} f_{1} \left( x \right) = x_{1}$$
(A.1)
$${\text{Minimize:}}\quad f_{2} \left( x \right) = \left( {1 + x_{2} } \right)/x_{1}$$
(A.2)
$${\text{where}}\quad g_{1} \left( x \right) = 6 - \left( {x_{2} + 9x_{1} } \right)$$
(A.3)
$$g_{2} \left( x \right) = 1 + \left( {x_{2} - 9x_{1} } \right)$$
(A.4)
$$0.1 \le x_{1} \le 1, 0 \le x_{2} \le 5$$

1.2 SRN

Srinivas and Deb [48] proposed the following continuous Pareto optimum front for the following issue:

$${\text{Minimize: }}\quad f_{1} \left( x \right) = 2 + \left( {x_{1} {-} 2} \right)^{2} + \left( {x_{2} {-} 1} \right)^{2}$$
(A.5)
$${\text{Minimize:}}\quad f_{2} \left( x \right){ } = 9x_{1} {-} \left( {x_{2} {-} 1} \right)^{2}$$
(A.6)
$${\text{where}}\quad g_{1} \left( x \right){ } = x_{1}^{2} + x_{2}^{2} - 255$$
(A.7)
$$g_{2} \left( x \right) = x_{1} - 3x_{2} + 10$$
(A.8)
$$- 20 \le x_{1} \le 20, - 20 \le x_{2} \le 20$$

1.3 BNH

Binh and Korn [49] provided a this example for the first time as follows:

$${\text{Minimize:}}\quad f_{1} \left( x \right) = 4x_{1}^{2} + 4x_{2}^{2}$$
(A.9)
$${\text{Minimize:}}\quad f_{2} \left( x \right) = (x_{1} - 5)^{2} + (x_{2} - 5)^{2}$$
(A.10)
$${\text{where}}\quad g_{1} \left( x \right) = (x_{1} - 5)^{2} + x_{2}^{2} - 25$$
(A.11)
$$g_{2} \left( x \right) = 7.7 - (x_{1} - 8)^{2} - (x_{2} + 3)^{2}$$
(A.12)
$$0 \le x_{1} \le 5,0 \le x_{2} \le 3$$

1.4 OSY

It was suggested by Osyczka and Kundu [50] that there should be five separate regions. In addition, the following six restrictions and six design variables should be taken into account:

$${\text{Minimize}}:\quad f_{1} \left( x \right) = x_{1}^{2} + x_{2}^{2} + x_{3}^{2} + x_{4}^{2} + x_{5}^{2} + x_{6}^{2}$$
(A.13)
$${\text{Minimize}}:\quad f_{2} \left( x \right) = [25(x_{1} - 2)^{2} + (x_{2} - 1)^{2} + \left( {x_{3} - 1} \right) + (x_{4} - 4)^{2} + \left( {x_{5} - 1)^{2} } \right]$$
(A.14)
$${\text{where}} g_{1} \left( x \right) = 2 - x_{1} - x_{2}$$
(A.15)
$$g_{2} \left( x \right) = - 6 + x_{1} + x_{2}$$
(A.16)
$$g_{3} \left( x \right) = - 2 - x_{1} + x_{2}$$
(A.17)
$$g_{4} \left( x \right) = - 2 + x_{1} - 3x_{2}$$
(A.18)
$$g_{5} \left( x \right) = - 4 + x_{4} + (x_{3} - 3)^{2}$$
(A.19)
$$g_{6} \left( x \right) = 4 - x_{6} - (x_{5} - 3)^{2}$$
(A.20)
$$0 \le x_{1} \le 10, 0 \le x_{2} \le 10, 1 \le x_{3} \le 5$$
(A.21)
$$0 \le x_{4} \le 6, 1 \le x_{5} \le 5, 0 \le x_{6} \le 10$$

Appendix B: constrained multi-objective engineering problems used in this paper

2.1 The four-bar truss design problem

In this 4-bar truss issue [51], there are two objectives as structural volume (\({f}_{1}\)) and displacement (\({f}_{2}\)), which are considered to be minimized. This issue has four design variables (\({x}_{1}-{x}_{4}\)) according to the cross-sectional area of members 1, 2, 3, and 4. This problem may be mathematically formularized as below:

$${\text{Minimize: }} f_{1} \left( x \right) = 200 \times \left( {2 \times x\left( 1 \right) + {\text{sqrt}}\left( {2 \times x\left( 2 \right)} \right) + {\text{sqrt}}\left( {x\left( 3 \right)} \right) + x\left( 4 \right)} \right)$$
(B.1)
$${\text{Minimize: }} f_{2} \left( x \right) = 0.01 \times \left( {\frac{2}{x\left( 1 \right)}} \right) + \left( {\frac{{2 \times {\text{sqrt}}\left( 2 \right)}}{x\left( 2 \right)}} \right) - \left( {\left( {2 \times {\text{sqrt}}\left( 2 \right)} \right)/x\left( 3 \right)} \right) + \left( {2/x\left( 1 \right)} \right))$$
(B.2)
$$1 \le x_{1} \le 3, 1.4142 \le x_{2} \le 3$$
$$1.4142 \le x_{3} \le 3, 1 \le x_{4} \le 3$$

2.2 The welded beam design problem

Ray and Liew [52] first offered this welded beam issue with two objectives, namely the fabrication cost (\({f}_{1}\)) and beam deflection (\({f}_{2}\)), which is to be reduced and four constraints. This issue has four numbers of variables, named weld thickness (\({x}_{1}\)), clamped bar length (\({x}_{2}\)), bar height (\({x}_{3}\)), and bar thickness (\({x}_{4}\)) as follows:

$${\text{Minimize: }} f_{1} \left( x \right) = 1.10471 \times x\left( 1 \right)^{2} \times x\left( 2 \right) + 0.04811 \times x\left( 3 \right) \times x\left( 4 \right) \times \left( {14 + x\left( 2 \right)} \right)$$
(B.3)
$${\text{Minimize: }} f_{2} \left( x \right) = 65856000/\left( {30 \times 10^{6} \times x\left( 4 \right) \times x\left( 3 \right)^{3} } \right)$$
(B.4)
$${\text{where }} g_{1} \left( x \right) = \tau - 13600$$
(B.5)
$$g_{2} \left( x \right) = \sigma - 30000$$
(B.6)
$$g_{3} \left( x \right) = x\left( 1 \right) - x\left( 4 \right)$$
(B.7)
$$g_{4} \left( x \right) = 6000 - P$$
(B.8)
$$0.125 \le x_{1} \le 5, 0.1 \le x_{2} \le 10$$
$$0.1 \le x_{3} \le 10, 0.125 \le x_{4} \le 5$$
$${\text{where }} q = 6000*\left( {14 + \frac{x\left( 2 \right)}{2}} \right);\;D = {\text{sqrt}}\left( {\frac{{x(2)^{2} }}{4} + \frac{{x\left( 1 \right) + x\left( 3 \right))^{2} }}{4}} \right)$$
(B.9)
$$J = 2*\left( {x\left( 1 \right)*x\left( 2 \right)*{\text{sqrt}}\left( 2 \right)*\left( {\frac{{x(2)^{2} }}{12} + \frac{{(x\left( 1 \right) + x\left( 3 \right))^{2} }}{4}} \right)} \right)$$
(B.10)
$$\alpha = \frac{6000}{{{\text{sqrt}}\left( 2 \right)*x\left( 1 \right)*x\left( 2 \right)}}$$
(B.11)
$$\beta = Q*\frac{D}{J}$$
(B.12)

2.3 Disk brake design problem

This disk brake design issue has figured by Ray and Liew [52] with two objectives, namely stopping time (\({f}_{1}\)) and brake mass (\({f}_{2}\)) to minimize and five constraints for a disk brake. This problem contains five numbers of variables: disk inner radius (\({x}_{1}\)), outer disk radius (\({x}_{2}\)), engaging force (\({x}_{3}\)), and friction surfaces number (\({x}_{4}\)). The following equations may represent this problem:

$${\text{Minimize: }} f_{1} \left( x \right) = 4.9 \times \left( {10} \right)^{{\left( { - 5} \right)}} \times \left( {x\left( 2 \right)^{\left( 2 \right)} - x\left( 1 \right)^{\left( 2 \right)} } \right) \times \left( {x\left( 4 \right) - 1} \right)$$
(B.13)
$${\text{Minimize: }} f_{2} \left( x \right) = \left( {9.82 \times \left( {10} \right)^{\left( 6 \right)} } \right)) \times \left( {x\left( 2 \right))^{\left( 2 \right)} - x\left( 1 \right)^{\left( 2 \right)} } \right))/\left( {\left( {x\left( 2 \right))^{\left( 3 \right)} - x\left( 1 \right)^{\left( 3 \right)} } \right) \times x\left( 4 \right) \times x\left( 3 \right)} \right)$$
(B.14)
$$g_{1} \left( x \right) = 20 + x\left( 1 \right) - x\left( 2 \right)$$
(B.15)
$$g_{2} \left( x \right) = 2.5 + \left( {x\left( 4 \right) + 1} \right) - 30$$
(B.16)
$$g_{3} \left( x \right) = \left( {x\left( 3 \right)} \right)/\left( {3.14 \times \left( {x\left( 2 \right)^{2} - x\left( 1 \right)^{2} } \right)^{2} } \right) - 0.4$$
(B.17)
$$g_{4} \left( x \right) = \left( {2.22 \times \left( {10} \right)^{{\left( { - 3} \right)}} \times x\left( 3 \right) \times \left( {x\left( 2 \right)^{3} - x\left( 1 \right)^{3} } \right)} \right)/\left( {\left( {x\left( 2 \right)^{2} - x\left( 1 \right)^{2} } \right)^{2} } \right) - 1$$
(B.18)
$$g_{5} \left( x \right) = 900 - \left( {2.66 \times \left( {10} \right)^{{\left( { - 2} \right)}} \times x\left( 3 \right) \times x\left( 4 \right) \times \left( {x\left( 2 \right)^{3} - x\left( 1 \right)^{3} } \right)} \right)/\left( {\left( {x\left( 2 \right)^{2} - x\left( 1 \right)^{2} } \right)^{2} } \right)$$
(B.19)
$$55 \le x_{1} \le 80, 75 \le x_{2} \le 110$$
$$1000 \le x_{3} \le 3000, 2 \le x_{4} \le 20$$

2.4 Speed reducer design problem

This issue [51, 53] contains two objectives such as weight (\({f}_{1}\)) and stress (\({f}_{2}\)), which are to be minimized. The problem may represent with a diagram as given in Fig. 10. Also, the problem has eleven constraints with seven numbers of design variables such as width of gear face (\({x}_{1}\)), teeth module (\({x}_{2}\)), pinion teeth number (\({x}_{3}\) numeral variable), a distance between of bearings 1 (\({x}_{4}\)), a distance of bearings 2 (\({x}_{5}\)), shaft 1 diameter (\({x}_{6}\)), and shaft 2 diameter (\({x}_{7}\)). The equations may clearly represent this problem as below:

$${\text{Minimize: }} f_{1} \left( x \right) = 0.7854 \times x\left( 1 \right) \times x(2)^{2} \times (3.3333 \times x\left( {3)^{2} + 14.9334 \times x\left( 3 \right)} \right) \ldots$$
$$- 43.0934) - 1.508 \times x\left( 1 \right) \times (x(6)^{2} + x(7)^{2}$$
(B.20)
$${\text{Minimize}}:{ }f_{2} \left( x \right) = (({\text{sqrt}}\left( {\left( {\left( {745*x\left( 4 \right)} \right)/x\left( 2 \right)*x\left( 3 \right)} \right))^{2} + 19.9e6} \right)/\left( {0.1*x\left( {6)^{3} } \right)} \right)$$
(B.21)
$${\text{where }} g_{1} \left( x \right) = 27/(x\left( 1 \right) \times x\left( {2)^{2} \times x\left( 3 \right)} \right) - 1$$
(B.22)
$$g_{2} \left( x \right) = 397.5/(x\left( 1 \right) \times x(2)^{2} \times x\left( {3)^{2} } \right) - 1$$
(B.23)
$$g_{3} \left( x \right) = (1.93 \times (x\left( {4)^{3} } \right)/(x\left( 2 \right) \times x\left( 3 \right) \times x\left( {6)^{4} } \right) - 1$$
(B.24)
$$g_{4} \left( x \right) = (1.93 \times (x\left( {5)^{3} } \right)/(x\left( 2 \right) \times x\left( 3 \right) \times x\left( {7)^{4} } \right) - 1$$
(B.25)
$$g_{5} \left( x \right) = (({\text{sqrt}}\left( {\left( {745 \times x\left( 4 \right)} \right)/x\left( 2 \right) \times x\left( {3)))^{2} + 16.9e6} \right)} \right)/\left( {110 \times x\left( {6)^{3} } \right)} \right) - 1$$
(B.26)
$$g_{6} \left( x \right) = (({\text{sqrt}}\left( {\left( {745 \times x\left( 4 \right)} \right)/x\left( 2 \right) \times x\left( {3)))^{2} + 157.5e6} \right)} \right)/\left( {85 \times x\left( {7)^{3} } \right)} \right) - 1$$
(B.27)
$$g_{7} \left( x \right) = \left( {\left( {x\left( 2 \right) \times x\left( 3 \right)} \right)/40} \right) {-} 1$$
(B.28)
$$\tau = {\text{sqrt}}\left( {\alpha^{2} + 2 \times \alpha \times \beta \times \frac{x\left( 2 \right)}{{2 \times D}} + \beta^{2} } \right)$$
(B.29)
$$\sigma = \frac{504000}{{x\left( 4 \right) \times x(3)^{2} }}$$
(B.30)
$${\text{tmpf}} = 4.013 \times \frac{{30 \times 10^{6} }}{196}$$
(B.31)
$$P = {\text{tmpf}} \times {\text{sqrt}}\left( {x(3)^{2} \times \frac{{x(4)^{6} }}{36}} \right) \times \left( {1 - x\left( 3 \right) \times \frac{{{\text{sqrt}}\left( {\frac{30}{{48}}} \right)}}{28}} \right)$$
(B.32)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khodadadi, N., Abualigah, L. & Mirjalili, S. Multi-objective Stochastic Paint Optimizer (MOSPO). Neural Comput & Applic 34, 18035–18058 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-07405-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-07405-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation